On 25/10/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic. It's not so much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there should be one bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.
Absolutely true.
I'm constantly saddened by the way Wikipedians in general tend to focus on procedure above all else, often sacrificing basic civility and tact in its favour. A good example would be WP:RFAF (failed admin candidacies), in which a depressingly large number of unlikely nominations for adminship - usually from people who simply have less than a thousand or so edits - result in pile-on opposition, with only a few users offering moral support and guidance.
It is, frankly, depressing - and not just because it results in so many violations of WP:BITE. I don't believe the problem can be solved, not even by altering process, because it stems from a basic failure to empathise with other users: it happens in every online community I've ever been a part of, and I can see no reason why it would cease in the foreseeable future. It is, as far as I can tell, an ugly fact of life.
-David
On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/10/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I have to agree with a lot of what you have said.
I still use en.wp as a reference (sometimes), but I rarely edit it. My reason now isn't the same as the one I used to have (busy with other language wikis), but rather, simply that I find the climate to be too hostile and too toxic for me to make any real editing progress.
I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic. It's not so much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there should be one bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.
Indeed.
The good admins are getting discouraged and leaving one by one, and the bad admins are continuing in their horribleness.
I'm not sure about this; it always seems this way. But some good and subtle ones are discouraged; and many who are intolerant of criticism and certain they have the only solutions remain.
Agreed.
en.wp has even gotten to the point where to be a member of certain sites critical of Wikipedia is somehow bad, and to be a *sysop* at them is even a sort of bannable offense (notably Hivemind, Wikitruth, ED).
Is it a bannable offense? There should be a special award for people who are effectively critical of Wikipedia.
Well, after ED posted an article about User:MONGO which he thoroughly disliked, he started his campaign against it. Wikitruth and other similar projects have long been viewed as not good because they were mostly started by banned users.
Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l